Nitrate assimilation pathway is impacted in young tobacco plants overexpressing a constitutively active nitrate reductase or displaying a defective CLCNt2

Background: We have previously shown that the expression of a constitutively active nitrate reductase variant and the suppression of CLCNt2 gene function (belonging to the chloride channel (CLC) gene family) in field-grown tobacco reduces tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNA) accumulation in cured leaves and cigarette smoke. In both cases, TSNA reductions resulted from a strong diminution of free nitrate in the leaf, as nitrate is a precursor of the TSNA-producing nitrosating agents formed during tobacco curing and smoking. These nitrosating agents modify tobacco alkaloids to produce TSNAs, the most problematic of which are NNN (N-nitrosonornicotine) and NNK (4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone). The expression of a deregulated nitrate reductase enzyme (DNR) that is no longer responsive to light regulation is believed to diminish free nitrate pools by immediately channeling incoming nitrate into the nitrate assimilation pathway. The reduction in nitrate observed when the two tobacco gene copies encoding the vacuolar nitrate transporter CLCNt2 were down-regulated by RNAi-mediated suppression or knocked out using the CRISPR-Cas technology was mechanistically distinct; likely attributable to the inability of the tobacco cell to efficiently sequester nitrate into the vacuole where this metabolite is protected from further assimilation. In this study, we used transcriptomic and metabolomic analyses to compare the nitrate assimilation response in tobacco plants either expressing DNR or lacking CLCNt2 function.

Results: When grown in a controlled environment, both DNR and CLCNt2-KO (CLCKO) plants exhibited (1) reduced nitrate content in the leaf; (2) increased N-assimilation into the amino acids Gln and Asn; and (3) a similar pattern of differential regulation of several genes controlling stress responses, including water stress, and cell wall metabolism in comparison to wild-type plants. Differences in gene regulation were also observed between DNR and CLCKO plants, including genes encoding nitrite reductase and asparagine synthetase.

Conclusions: Our data suggest that even though both DNR and CLCKO plants display common characteristics with respect to nitrate assimilation, cellular responses, water stress, and cell wall remodeling, notable differences in gene regulatory patterns between the two low nitrate plants are also observed. These findings open new avenues in using plants fixing more nitrogen into amino acids for plant improvement or nutrition perspectives.